We know Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) managing accessibility remediation are looking for something simple and easy that just works. Something that opens up a nice workflow for their development teams to fix issues identified in audit reports.
We think the Accessibility Tracker platform has a lot of promise and here’s why: centralized project management, integrated AI assistance, and systematic WCAG conformance and compliance tracking that transforms spreadsheet-based remediation into a legitimately organized operation.
Let’s see if we can make the grade into water cooler conversation.
| Technical Challenge | Traditional Approach | Platform Solution |
|---|---|---|
| WCAG Knowledge Gaps | Developers research each unfamiliar issue | Tracker AI provides instant technical guidance |
| Issue Prioritization | Manual review of audit spreadsheets | Automated sorting by risk or user impact |
| Team Coordination | Email threads and status meetings | Real-time assignment and progress tracking |
| Code Quality Assurance | Inconsistent implementation patterns | AI-guided fixes with code examples |
| Compliance Documentation | Manual progress reports | Automated compliance documentation |
Table of Contents
1 or 2 Technical Problems
Accessibility audits typically identify dozens or hundreds of issues across digital assets. To date, development teams have usually received these findings in Excel spreadsheets that list out various accessibility issues. Many developers are new to accessibility so that has created extra friction.
The problem extends beyond code fixes. CTOs need to orchestrate technical projects across team members, codebases, and compliance requirements. Most accessibility platforms compound this difficulty by using automated scans that only flag about 25% of accessibility issues. These scan-based tools miss a lot.
Full WCAG conformance (which we’re assuming your organization is after because every one of our clients is) requires fixing all accessibility issues, not just the ones automated scans can detect. CTOs using scan-based platforms soon find out all progress and tracking is completely skewed.
So this is a point in our favor: Tracker is audit-based so you can work towards full conformance.
Good Platform for Systematic Remediation
Accessibility Tracker works with complete audit reports, not automated scans. The platform extracts data from audit spreadsheets and transforms static data into actionable tasks with the catch that we have in-dashboard AI assistance to help.
When teams upload an audit report, the platform organizes issues by technical category, affected components, and implementation complexity. Developers see assigned issues in a project management interface designed specifically for accessibility workflows.
The platform supports multiple concurrent projects. CTOs manage remediation across different products, websites, and applications from one dashboard. Each project maintains separate issue tracking while sharing organizational learning across all remediation efforts.
This audit-based approach ensures every tracked issue represents a real accessibility barrier that needs fixing. Progress metrics reflect actual WCAG conformance, not just the subset of issues that automated tools can detect.
We’re marking another line on the green chalkboard.
AI Integration for Developer Efficiency
Tracker AI changes how developers approach unfamiliar accessibility issues. Instead of researching WCAG documentation, developers receive instant technical guidance specific to each issue in their audit.
The AI tools operate on actual audit data from your evaluation. When developers encounter complex ARIA implementations, Tracker AI provides code examples that match your specific framework and context. This eliminates the research phase of remediation.
Five specialized AI tools address different developer needs. The technical answer tool provides implementation code. The alternative approaches tool offers different solutions when standard fixes conflict with existing architecture. The WCAG standards tool explains requirements in technical terms.
This AI assistance creates consistent code quality across teams. Junior developers produce quality fixes because the platform provides accessibility expertise. Teams build knowledge through practical implementation rather than abstract training.
The chalkboard is starting to look awfully crowded.
Managing Technical Debt Through Prioritization
CTOs balance accessibility compliance with feature development and technical debt reduction. The platform provides two prioritization algorithms that align remediation with business objectives.
The risk factor formula prioritizes issues based on actual complaint data from website accessibility / ADA lawsuits (as in we actually looked through the papers filed in court). CTOs address the highest legal exposure first, particularly important for companies facing compliance deadlines or operating in regulated industries.
The user impact formula uses technical scoring to identify issues creating significant barriers for users with disabilities. This approach improves actual user experience while working toward WCAG conformance.
Both formulas translate accessibility priorities into objective technical tasks. Teams know which issues to address first based on data.
Our clients asked us for this service (prioritizing issues on spreadsheets) so much that this is actually how we started off Tracker — it was just supposed to be a prioritizer app.
Nobody likes technical debt so maybe we don’t get another point stripe, but that’s not a bad one-liner story, right?
Integration with Development Workflows
The platform doesn’t require abandoning existing development processes. Teams continue using their preferred IDEs, version control systems, and deployment pipelines. Accessibility Tracker manages the remediation project layer.
Developers mark issues as completed after pushing code changes. Auditors validate fixes directly in the platform, with feedback attached to specific issues. This creates clear handoffs between development and validation phases.
The platform maintains an audit trail of remediation activities. CTOs demonstrate compliance efforts to legal teams, show progress to executives, and provide documentation for regulatory requirements. This is particularly valuable if you need documented evidence for legal or executive review.
We merged two features in this section — call it a minus 1. But the functionality is strong, and if you’ve read this far you’ll want to see the free plan in action.
Resource Allocation and Capacity Planning
Accessibility Tracker provides metrics for resource planning. The platform tracks remediation time by issue type, developer efficiency patterns, and validation bottlenecks.
These metrics inform capacity planning. If keyboard navigation issues require three hours while color contrast fixes take thirty minutes, CTOs can estimate timelines for new audits. Data replaces guesswork in project planning.
The platform identifies patterns across projects. When multiple products show similar issues, CTOs implement preventive measures in development standards. Reactive remediation transforms into proactive accessibility practices.
Compliance Documentation for Technical Leaders
CTOs need to demonstrate technical compliance to non-technical stakeholders. Legal teams want remediation progress proof. Executives need status reports. Auditors require implementation documentation.
Accessibility Tracker generates this documentation throughout remediation. Progress reports show completion percentages, timeline adherence, and work estimates. Compliance documentation proves which WCAG criteria have been addressed.
This documentation translates technical work into business metrics. Instead of explaining code changes, CTOs show compliance percentages and risk reduction metrics that executives understand.
Scan-Based Platforms vs. Audit-Based Tracking
Most accessibility software relies on automated scanning. These tools run scripts that check for technical patterns like missing alt text or color contrast ratios. While scans provide quick results, they miss most WCAG requirements.
Scans cannot evaluate keyboard navigation functionality. They cannot determine if screen readers announce content correctly. They cannot assess whether ARIA implementations actually improve accessibility or create new barriers.
CTOs using scan-based platforms track incomplete data. A dashboard showing “80% compliance” based on scan results might represent only 20% actual WCAG conformance. This creates false confidence and leaves organizations exposed to litigation risk.
Accessibility Tracker works exclusively with comprehensive audit reports. Every tracked issue represents a real accessibility barrier identified through manual evaluation including keyboard testing and screen reader testing. Progress metrics reflect actual movement toward WCAG conformance.
FAQ
Why can’t automated scans provide the same tracking capabilities?
Automated scans only detect about 25% of WCAG issues. They cannot evaluate keyboard functionality, screen reader compatibility, or proper ARIA implementation. Tracking scan results provides incomplete compliance data that doesn’t reflect actual accessibility barriers users face.
What happens when developers disagree with audit findings or recommended fixes?
The platform includes commenting features with notes. You can provide feedback for the auditor / validator and they can actually make an adjustment to the audit data inside the platform.
What metrics does the platform provide for measuring developer productivity?
The platform tracks issue completion rates, audit-to-audit progress, issue progress based on user impact, and more. CTOs identify which developers excel at specific issue types and optimize team assignments. These metrics establish realistic timelines and improve resource allocation for future projects.
Get Started
For a new accessibility platform, that’s a lot of points on the board. Start your first project today at AccessibilityTracker.com. and see how quickly remediation becomes organized.
